About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 26
CNNW 6
CSPAN 3
CSPAN2 2
KGO (ABC) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 50
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
president bill clinton, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is not accurate. i have asked jeffrey toobin to explain this. >> all we can say is that president clinton believes it was a mistake and whatever justification he had in 1996 was not good enough, and he, like virtually the entire democratic party now, repudiates it and they want to see it overturned. >> this is not a thumb's up or thumb's down decision, right? this is the supreme court, and so what are we looking at here? >> well, this is a bit of a rubik's cube, and both the defense of marriage act case and the challenge to proposition 8, the case that the law that bans same-sex marriage in california. the defense of marriage act case refers to the federal law that says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it is legal. so people, and gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it is legal, they cannot file joint tax return, and they can't get social security survivor's benefits and if the court up
wrote, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is in fact imcompatible with our constitution. he said, back then it was less of a condemnation of legal marriage and a bit of legal maneuveri maneuvering. i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistake to sign doma. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wuntd good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get
to be looking ahead to d.o.m.a. and prop 8 and the supreme court is going to be hearing arguments on those cases. some people have said the best thing for the republican party would be four the court to strike down both of those provisions so they don't exactly have to litigate or plant a flag on their opinion regarding gay marriage any more. it's settled law of the land and everybody can forget about this being a divisive issue and move along. what do you make of that? >> well look, there's no question that congress, that passed d.o.m.a., certainly has a responsibility as many there have tried. to repeal d.o.m.a. d.o.m.a. is before the supreme court next week, as is proposition 8, the marriage ban in cal cam. we'll see what the court does on those two. i'm opt michtic on both. at the end of the day, we don't decide the fundamental rights of a minority by the a vote of the people or the whims of public opinion polls. that's with a our judiciary is there for. as we're talking about the new language that you're hearing from chairman raince priebus and the report that came out from the republican p
another law. doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks federal recognition of same sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about 1,000 federal benefits the other married couples get. when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a bill from the irs for $363,000. >> i was heart sick. i lost the love of my life and i was heart sick. with this incredible expense. >> reporter: after president obama concluded the law is unconstitutional, house republicans entered the case to defend doma. >> thanks to pete williams who will join our coverage tomorrow and wednesday, if the high court strikes down doma, that would not automatically require states to permit same-sex marriage but the ruling could be a game changer for what all states are allowed to do. let's spin. jonathan capehart, friend of the show hark as piece out in the "washington post" today where he says, i don't think lgbt american fully appreciate how ten with us thing are on the court right now. he is very cautious. in factoring argues that the shift in social acceptance of gay marriage rec
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
the supreme court to strike down doma. and now on the heels that, hillary clinton coming out in support of marriage equality. >> well that's right. i think most people assumed that secretary clinton was for it. but she wasn't in a political position in the administration. i don't think you'll see any viable democratic candidate in 2016 who's going to make it through the primary oppose gay marriage. you saw rush by governors like o'malley and cuomo to stay they supported it. the vice president. even after the announcement of senator portman and all these republican consultants you simply can't be a democratic candidate in 2016 and oppose same-sex marriage. >> susan, your reaction to this. again, this is on the heels of the fact that rob portman made this fantastic declaration of how he supports his kid and wants him to be able to achieve marriage equality in the country. a big tauurnaround in the republican party. this is huge for hillary clinton. >> i agree with ben 100%. no democrat in the 2016 campaign is going to be opposed to marriage equality. before this, she was not pro-marriage
the defense of marriage act into law wrote an op-ed piece saying he believes that doma is, quote, incompatible with our constitution. the white house becomed hillary clinton to the majority side of marriage equality today. >> i can tell you that the president believes any time a public official of stature steps forward to embrace a commitment that he shares to equality for lbgt americans he thinks is a good thing. >> first of all, who is doing the lighting for that video? more godfather-y than i expected, that dark brooding look. >> it reminded me of the video she -- when she announced in 2008, it was that kind of soft, sing songy voice and lighting. listen, i don't think it is a surprise she has come out for same sex marriage. interesting this is her first post secretary of state announcement and now there's a lot of buzz around her possibly running in 2016. i think we have seen dramatic shift in public opinion. it happened swiftly. i remain shocked how much changed in the last couple years. if you go back to 2008, bush ran against same sex marriage and that in many ways helped him in states
. wednesday's case is a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal. after first defending the law, the obama administration switched sides and now says it's unconstitutional. both these cases come to the court in a political climate that's very different from what it was just four years ago when prop 8 was passed. janelle, raj. >> thanks, pete. >>> a bay area boy is now getting worldwide attention after preparing his own argument in favor of same-sex marriage and then sending it to the nation's highest court. 12-year-old daniel sent a letter to supreme court chief justice john roberts about next week's case. even though daniel and his sister have two dads, daniel feels he has a lot in common with the chief justice, who has two adopted children of his own. before mailing his letter to roberts, daniel read it on youtube with hopes of reaching all the justices. >> you and i both know that family goes deeper than blood. i was lucky to be adopted by two guys i can both call dad. >> it's nev
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
of marriage act - or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." >> reporter: i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> military officials say a soldier from hayward has died from wounds suffered last week in afghanistan. the department of defense says 31-year-old sergeant. 1st class james grissom died thursday from wounds he received from small arms fire on march 18. grissom was assigned to a special forces group and was shot in remote southeast afghanistan bordering pakistan. >> lots of sunshine around the bay area. temperatures fairly cool along the coast. just barely 50's & '6
environment -- i would be hard to imagine if in june they come back with the ruling on the doma case and prop 8 case and they maintain doma and maintain -- it's just hard to imagine in this environment. there would be such a backlash. the public is so ahead of where these laws were in 2004 and 2008. >> bill: absolutely. 866-55-press if you want to weigh in on this very very significant movement in the direction in support of marriage equality. you mentioned and you referred to the -- we love the phrase autopsy. in that this is what the republicans are calling it the point we have made here several times. it's an unusual choice of a phrase -- if you want -- that you do not perform autopsy on bodies you expect to come back to life. >> they are dead. >> bill: exactly they are cold. but that's what they are calling it. at any rate, one of the things is outreach. we're going to spend $10 million reaching out to women and to blacks and to latinos and they are already violating it you report on think progress. >> they violated moments after -- you have this big endorse
, that is continuing to finance the defense of doma, it is a matter of policy -- >> confusing things here. let's not confuse the issue administration must position that it was unconstitutional. it was not their role to decide what was constitution. it was a lot that was signed into president -- into law by president clinton, and in our system of government, the administration does not get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. our defense of the lawsuit is to make sure the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what is not. to circle back -- [indiscernible] i wanted to ask you about the debt limit. weeks off, then back for three weeks. >> are you going to stick for dollar for dollar? but dollar for dollar is the plan, and we have had some discussions, but not any big discussions at this point. >> you perceive this whole budget issue, the sequester, has all been pushed up to august, are you open that those conversations with the president, are we gearing down for a showdown in august? >> we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester w
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
takes up marriage equality. hearing arguments on california's proposition 8 on tuesday and then doma on wednesday. lbgt groups are planning over 100 events across the country to mark the historic legal debate. this is as a new abc news/"the washington post" poll shows support for marriage equality is at an all-time high riding at 58%. joining me to talk more about this is marriage equality director brian silva. it is great to have you here. as we talk more about that poll and we dig deeper we look at the evaluation of the youth vote. 18-year-olds to 29-year-olds. they back marriage equality at a wlo whopping 81%. yesterday hillary clinton came outputting that statement on vhrc website. her husband came out on march 7th for marriage equality to strike down doma. we have senator portman coming out. we have huntsman that's come out for marriage equality. has the tide turned? >> yes. there is a reason i have a big smile on my face. it's been a great time for marriage equality. we have folks across the political spectrum, the faith, the age spectrum. the super majority of americans believ
marriage cases including doma, the defense of marriage act. our panel, newt gingrich, evan byah, jennifer rubin of the "washington post" and, fox news analyst juan williams. you oppose same sex marriage but want to see the court make a sweeping decision or a narrow decision to leave it where it is now in various state legislatures. >> they are making the point, look at the percentage of support. if that is true, over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. they would be far better off to decide the cases on the narrowest possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against -- >> a huge mistake and undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator, how far would you like to see the court go and how far do you expect them to go. >> it means trying to read the mind of justice kennedy and my guess is he'd be reluctant to strike down the laws of the 41 states that currently prohibit same sex marriage or allow civil unions. but, on the other hand, seize the broad sweep of history here, the direction the countr
a man and woman. en wednesday a case on the constitutionality on doma. you can listen to these on tuesday and wednesday evening at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> to believe in something that is so right, so dear, so necessary, you have to get in trouble. before we got in trouble, we studied. we didn't wake up one morning and say we're going to go is it in. we didn't just dream we're going to come to washington to washington and go on a freedom rite or we were going to march. we studied. we prepared ourselves. >> they say black power. they intimidated so many people, white people in particular by using that phrase black power. because when they use that word plaque power it made many people think black power meant destruction, blowing up the statute of liberty or ground zero, stroig america. it wasn't about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america. t was about having a new paradigm how we could be as we were doing the pledge in school the land of the free, the home of the brave. >> john lewis and john carlos discuss their personal experiences during the civil rig
.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage li
and doma. >> i'm optimistic. look how the courts have dealt with this in california in the last six years. look at the polling in california from the time we passed proposition eight to outlaw gay marriage to where we are in the public polls now. it has changed all over california and it's beginning to change all over the country. you see that in the corporations wecorporations' responses you see that in elected official's responses from former vice presidents senators and throughout the country. i think it's really flipped in the last seven or eight years in terms of the public perception of this issue. result i think the courts will follow that. >> michael: optimism j lazarus thank you so much for coming into "the war room." >> thank you. >> michael: an unique question and answer session puts the african-american experience in a whole new light. >> we could find our own way by standing up for the truth. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will
be for the supreme court to strike down prop 8 and doma so this becomes settled law of the land and they do not have to deal with the schism inside their party and all the old guys who are culturally or religiously or for whatever reason resistant to marriage equality will no longer be holding office and will die off, i think is what josh says, and the republican party can move past this. >> well, it would take a brave republican in the meantime to move against the party on this with only 34% support in the republican party. and rand paul is not that brave republican. it's always fun to watch him torn between libertarianism and republicanism as he is on this thing, the libertarian view, of course, is that government should have nothing to do with religion in any way. they don't understand why the state would -- be issuing marriage licenses. but, you know, there he is. stuck defending the republican position. and -- but ari, going forward, if the supreme court doesn't help out the republican party this way, how long would it take for there to be some beginning of peeling off of republicans from the p
of marriage act, doma. and there are reports of people already lining up outside the court to hear these arguments. and joining me now is the executive director for the foundation for equal rights. thank you for joining me. i want to get a preview of the case that you're going to present to the supreme court next week. >> sure. on tuesday, ted and david are going to go in that courtroom and they're going to make the case that one, 14 times the supreme court has said there's a fundamental right to marry for all americans. two, that denying gay and lesbian couples that right all rights them and hurs their families. and three, allowing gay and lesbian couples access to this right to make that pledge of public commitment through love and marriage hurts no one else. >> it must be buoyed by a group that agreed that children who are raised with gay parents that are married have a much more stable home life for them. but when it comes to whether or not this should be a state versus federal issue, we are seeing governors approach it quite differently. you have colorado's governor hickenloop
possible. i'm sorry. i think they're going to decide it on the prop 8 case on -- and doma on standing. on who has standing to bring. especially doma. they'll decide it on a narrow -- that somebody doesn't have standing to bring the case and same with prop 8. so it will overturn it. it will overturn prop 8 in california. i think that's gone. without a doubt. but i'm going to hold out the big optimistic, just let everybody get married decision. i don't hope -- i hope for that but i don't believe it will happen. >> stephanie: what makes me nervous is whin you have somebody like a -- is when you have -- i was just doing a hernia test on jim. you have somebody like ruth bader ginsburg, she's pro-choice but roe v. wade did it create a backlash. that's a little unnerving right? >> right. except that i think the nation's ready for that. i mean you know, especially young people. what is it? 80% of young people are people under 30 -- that's young people. i feel so old. >> stephanie: all right grandpa. >> get off my lawn! >> stephanie: drop the prunes for a minute. go ahead. >> that they support
support for gay marriage. come out for d.o.m.a., which he passed. they have sort of come to the light, if you will. republicans i think need to also have a, they need to go to authenticity school or wherever it is that you learn how to do this sort of stuff if they're going to move the party forward on this. >> the fact that they've called this the growth and opportunity project, i think says it all this is about, i know that this is is a strategy document for trying to win more votes. but why not call it something like, what we can do for middle class america. i mean, why not make this about the policies of the republican party that are going to help people, rather than how we can get more votes. i mean that for me said it all. and at the same time that this comes out, you have the republican congressman from tennessee suggesting we should have random drug testing of welfare recipients. there you have the exact opposite message coming out from a republican again, about how they view basically poor people. >> and unfortunately, we didn't have time to discuss this, this piece of strate
of the defense of marriage act. a few days before the supreme court will look at both doma, defense of marriage act, and california's prop 8. it also puts her in line with top democrats heavily weighing 2016 bids, of course. could this mean a move for her already, eventual candidacy? chad griffin, president of human rights campaign, and joel walsh editor at large for "salon" and msnbc political analyst and laughing, and joyously involved in fascinatine inine ining piec. hillary clinton has come forward in a very well-produced video. very well done. and i listened to it all today and it's well done. here's why question. how did it happen? we were talking, the producers and i, when is she going to do it, how is she going to do it? >> i knew the clint nts for a long time. i grew up in arkansas. over the last few years every chance i had when i was around people in leadership positions, i urged them to fully evolve and come out in support of marriage equali equality. that includes former secretary clinton sometime clint clinton. sometimes in the last ten days or so she reached out to do this video
that while republicans may grouse about d.o.m.a. and prop 8, the best thing that could happen if the supreme court strikes down both, he writes a supreme court decision imposing gay marriage nationwide will give republicans a useful scapegoat to impotently shake their fists at, they will say they wish they could continue their fight against gay marriage but the activists on the supreme court have made it impossible and gradually, everyone who cares about stopping gay marriage will grow old and die. >> i think he probably is right about that, good analysis. better for them if the issue is somehow taken off the table. the thing they most hate is when the supreme court preempts legislation at the state and federal level. i mean it's interesting a dynamic now, the issue is moving faster than anybody could have ever anticipated. and republicans in this case thought it was going to be a political advantage for them has quickly turned into a liability. the question of at what point a politician gets patted on the head for being courageous and at what time they deserve a little slap for being late t
and the bipartisan legal counsel to continue this fight, $3 million of taxpayer money to oppose doma? >> well, look, this is a position of our party. but, you know, our point in the report, luke, is that, you know, when i was asked at the national press club i think one of the reporters asked me and he said are you still going to fund, you know, rob portman? my response is, of course we're going to help rob portman. he's a good conservative republican. my appointment, luke, i'm not going to get into this sort of back and forth with leadership, but what i will tell you is i think our party needs to have the attitude that if i disagree with you on one issue, it doesn't mean that you're a lousy republican. it means that you're a good republican. it means we agree on most issues and we need to unite our party. we can't build our party if we're going to cut out certain pieces and certain parts that we may not agree on 100% on but we have to grow. so we have to grow through additional -- >> mr. chairman, you're a relatively young man, 41 years old. do you think the republican party -- >> i'm pretty young
. but what we doma maintain, and think the president is the first do so, is that israel has the rate to independently defend itself against any threat, including the iranian threat. >> i think the only thing i would add is that our intelligence cooperation on this issue, the consultation between our militaries, intelligence, is unprecedented. and there is not a lot of light, a lot of daylight, between our k our countries' assessments in terms of where iran is right now. i think what bb alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has it make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action. and that israel is differently situated than the united states. and i would not expect that the prime minister would make a decision about his country's security and defer that to any other country. any more than the united states would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security. i have shared that with bb, is i said to the entire world, and said to the iranian people and iranian leaders, that i think there is
, will be hearing arguments on two landmark cases. the federal defense of marriage act or doma and proposition 8. so what can next week mean for politicians? mark murray is standing by. so mark, if the court strikes down these laws, do you think that could potentially help politicians in both parties? >> i think you could see more governors, more state legislatures feel like they might have free reign for gay marriage in their states. craig, i will say you're already seeing such a rush on this in states with democratic control. and the change in attitudes has been striking. in our own "wall street journal" poll, 30% of the country supported gay marriage in 2004. that is now a majority. 51%. so a full 20 or more percentage points increase in just nine years. that's amazing in social attitudes and in american politics. >> it kind of reminds me, when roe v. wade happened, a lot of politicians could say this is settled law. so you don't have to spend a great deal of time engaged in debates with a potential political opponent over it. if the court, if it keeps these laws intact, how could that complicate
of marriage act, doma. what a week. the line began forming last night as our own justice department correspondent pete williams points out it may be the earliest we've ever seen a crowd form up there at the supreme court. we'll be right back. you hardly know i exist. that's too bad. 'cuz if my pressure relief valve gets stuck... [ booooooom! ] ...we hot water heaters can transform into rocket propelled wrecking balls. and if you got the wrong home insurance coverage, it's your bank account that might explode. so get allstate. [ dennis ] good hands. good home. make sure you have the right home protection. talk to an allstate agent. you know who you are. you can part a crowd, without saying a word... if you have yet to master the quiet sneeze... you stash tissues like a squirrel stashes nuts... well muddlers, muddle no more. try zyrtec®. it gives you powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin® because zyrtec® starts working at hour one on the first day you take it. claritin® doesn't start working until hour three. zyrtec®. love the air. >> welcome back to "h
the justices will hear arguments challenging the federal defense of marriage act, doma. what a week. the line began forming last night as our own justice department correspondent pete williams points out it may be the earliest we've ever seen a crowd form up there at the supreme court. we'll be right back. ♪ [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. life opens up when you do. >>> welcome back to "hardball." the republican party has moved so far right that any time a hint of reasonableness creeps into a republican's comments especially comments from an elected republican that person is quickly snapped back into line. that's what happened this week when ohio governor john kasich who i liked changed his po
to look at the proposition 8 in california, and to declare it unconstitutional and also to repeal doma. these are two big cases. and it's going to have a major impact. >> terry, you cover the supreme court for us. it seems to put two justices especially in an interesting position, justice kennedy, the traditional swing vote for the justices. but maybe, even more chief justice john roberts, 58 years old, likely to be chief justice for a long time. you see how support for gay marriage has surged in the last year. even if he personally may be against it, he's likely to look and see, 10, 15 years, still sitting on the bench, it's going to be 70% support in the country. >> there's an institutional challenge to the court in the astonishing speed that the country has changed its mind. the people are way ahead of the elite. the president, when he ran for president was against gay marriage. the supreme court, was in a generation outlawed sodomy for gay people but not for straight people. they overturned that decision. he doesn't want to be that chief justice caught on the wrong side. at the sam
at mhpshow.com. that's our show for today. i'll see you tomorrow to talk about the supreme court case, doma, and prop 8. all that on mph tomorrow. coming up "weekends with alex witt." is saving money better than not saving money? [ kids ] yeah! ok. if you saved enough money, what would you do with it? i would buy an island made out of candy. an island made out of candy? it would be like sand full of sugar. sand full of sugar? the water could be made out of like soda, and when you take a shower it could be made out of like hot fudge. ooooo. what about the animals? what would they be made out of? um, i'm assuming they'd be made out of candy? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. saving is better. switch to at&t and your family can save up to 100 dollars a month with mobile share. ♪
, and the doma cases and that outcome. >> marriage is a health issue from a foundational perspective inasmuch as i mentioned earlier. people tend to be healthier. you have a caretaker in the home and you have the report and it's probably easier for you to get insurance coverage so all of that -- somebody being healthier so marriage equals health in many cases but more broadly as the perspective of lgbt movement and community organizing is that health is really foundational. health is what comes first. it's what you need in order to enjoy the benefits of marriage equality. it's what you need to be able to serve in the military and it ordered to go to work every day and take advantage of protectioprotectio ends we are fighting for to make sure the lgbt folks don't get fired. health is really the underpinnunderpinning, the ground on which so many of our other victories or other old are built and so fighting for the ability of lgbt people to be healthy and to stay healthy to protect themselves and their families and their communities is really i think as they said the foundation on which so much
presentations and health care, and, you know, are the doma cases impacting that at all, do you think, in that outcome? >> i mean, marriaging is a health issue from a foundational perspective inasmuch as i mentioned earlier married people tend to be healthier. you have a caretaker in the home, you have social support, it's probably easier for you to get insurance coverage, to all of that translates to being healthier. so marriage equals health in many cases. but more broadly from the perspective of the lgbt movement is health is foundational. health is what comes fist. it's what you need in order to enjoy the benefits of marriage. it's what you need in order to be able to serve in the military. it's what you need in order to be able to go to work every day and take advantage of protections that we're all fighting for. so health is really the underpinning, the ground on which so many of our other victories or our other goals are built. and so fighting for the ability of lgpt to be healthy, to protect themselves and their families and their communities is really, i think, as i said, the
act. doma making news after former president bill clinton publicly urged the nine justices to overturn the rule he signed into law. now his wife, hillary clinton, is expressing her support for same-sex marriage. >> lbgt americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. that includes marriage. >> the clintons are joining prominent politicians on both sides of the aisle, including ohio senator rob portman, a republican who is publicly backing same-sex marriage. but will that political pressure have any impact on the nation's highest court? joining me now is cnn senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin, and the executive director and founder of go proud, jimmy dealva. thank you both for being with us this morning. >> good morning. >> jimmy, there's a new poll in "the washington post" that shows a surprising 58% of americans support same-sex marriage. that is a sea change from just a few years ago. to what do you attribute that rise? >> i think that all americans are thinking about
prediction about what you think, van, will happen next week with the u.s. supreme court? >> i think that doma will be struck down, and i think kennedy is the decisive player. i think will is right, you won't see a big case, it's legal everywhere, it's done. i would love to see that, but i don't think they will do that. i think it's a narrow decision. >> it will affect two or three states. >> okay. thank you to both of you. van jones and will cain. >> you bet. >>> mystery caper. the case of nancy grace's missing cuff necklace. the prime suspect may be anderson cooper. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. let's see what you got. rv -- covered. why would you pay for a hotel? i never do. motorcycles -- check. atv. i ride those. do you? no. boat. house. hello, dear. hello. hello. oh! check it -- [ loud r&b on car radio ] i'm going on break! the more you bundle, the more you save. now,
defense of marriage act or doma which defines federal acknowledgment of same-sex marriag marriages. at stake? federal marriage benefits for those who are legally married. the arguments laid out before the nine justices this week will establish a furd precedence for the next chapter for the fight in marriage equality. this is a watershed moment. but it is just part of a long and continuing struggle because the struggle has already been quite long. in the summer of 1969, five days of riots sparked by the aggressive anti-guy police action in new york city founded a battle cry that helped to launch the guy rights movement. a year later, a couple in minnesota was denied a marriage license because state law limited marriage to persons of the opposite sex. their case made to the u.s. supreme court back in 1972. it was dismissed without so much as a written opinion. the court ruled that same sex couples have no constitutional rights married and that the legal challenge itself failed to raise a substantial federal question at all. but the struggle continued. it would be another 14 years bef
will do. >> i think the case against doma is extraordinary. i cannot imagine the court not declaring it unconstitutional. in fact, i am so hopeful i think we might even get a 6-3 vote out of this. >> bill: wow. >> because in one since you could make the conservative case that the federal court was messing in state's business. from a conservativeview point, you could possibly vote against it. i think the prop 8 case is very much up in the air. it's interesting to me that the court took it on because it could have just let the lower court decision stand which would have declared it unconstitutional for california. why did they check it out? i don't think it's to overturn the lower court's decision and i don't think that we will see them proclaiming marriage equality nationwide. >> yeah. >> what i do think is is that they will overturn -- excuse me. they will affirm prop 8s unconstitutionality for california but they will be doing it as a way of signalling to the country that marriage equality for all is on its way. >> right. >> that will be a great statem
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)